Retrieve all unsent drafts from your Telegram account, each paired with the chat it belongs to. Use this to review incomplete messages and decide whether to continue or discard them.
Every unsent draft in the account, with the chat it belongs to.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile. The description adds useful scope information (all drafts in the account, chat association), but does not disclose return format, ordering, or behavior when no drafts exist. This is comparable to the get_calls calibration where a scoping constraint adds moderate value beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence with no filler words. The key scope ('every', 'in the account') is front-loaded and the chat association is a necessary differentiator. It earns its place without any waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless, read-only list tool, the description is largely complete: it states the resource, the scope, and the included context (chat). The lack of an output schema and no mention of return type are minor gaps given the simplicity and the annotation coverage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters and the schema coverage is trivially 100%, so the schema carries no burden. The description adds no paramater-specific details, but none are needed. The baseline for zero parameters is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the resource (unsent drafts) and the scope (every drafts in the account) and adds the chat association. It is a precise noun-phrase definition rather than an explicit verb phrase, and it does not name or contrast with sibling tools like tg_draft, but it is still specific enough for an agent to understand the listing purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use tg_drafts versus related tools such as tg_draft, tg_pending, or tg_history. There are no exclusions or alternatives mentioned, so the agent must infer usage from the name and description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.